Price tag on embassy security makes U.S. think twice

Associated Press

Published Saturday, June 23, 2001

WASHINGTON -- When truck bombs laid waste to two U.S. embassies in Africa in 1998, Congress clamored for more guards, more walls, more armored vehicles and, above all, more money to protect U.S. outposts.

Three years later, there are signs that support for expensive security improvement is waning. And the State Department has yet to complete key improvements recommended by the Pentagon after the embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania that killed more than 200 people.

''It seems to come in waves,'' said Harvard professor and foreign terrorism expert Juliette Kayyem. ''When terrorists strike, there is a lot of support for more money for embassies, but it slowly fades until we have another mean reminder.''

There is fresh evidence that threats remain.

This week, authorities in Yemen arrested 15 people, eight of whom were believed connected to a plot to bomb the U.S. Embassy in San'a, Yemen. Suspicious activity by people who appeared to be gathering information about security prompted authorities to close the embassy to the public.

And on Friday, in response to a threat against Americans in the Middle East, the government cut short a Marine Corps training exercise in Jordan and pulled Navy ships out of port in Bahrain.

As officials debate how to strengthen security at embassies around the world, some in Congress are arguing that threats can be met without exorbitant spending.

With security in mind, the State Department proposed building four embassies for $100 million each last year -- the most expensive ever. The cost to build each of the embassies -- in Abidjan, Ivory Coast; Sao Paulo, Brazil; Sofia, Bulgaria, and Yerevan, Armenia -- has since been trimmed to under $100 million.

''There has to be a sense of proportion,'' said Sen. Ernest Hollings, D-S.C. ''We don't have that kind of money and the people who send us to Washington don't support that kind of expenditure. If we have to build a fortress, maybe we should consider whether the country is a place we really have to have a presence.''

''If you decide it takes a 100-foot wall to keep an embassy safe, why build a 200-foot wall?'' Lewin said. ''It doesn't send a positive message about relations if the United States builds a fortress in the center of every capital, especially if it is not necessary.''

Secretary of State Colin Powell has signaled that he wants to rethink embassy security.

In testimony to the House International Relations Committee earlier this year, Powell said that in some cases, there will be no need to abide by a regulation that embassies be situated at least 100 feet from the nearest street. The 100-foot setback is expensive because it forces the government to buy large amounts of urban property.

''The 100-foot setback can sometimes be overcome by better and smarter construction,'' Powell said. ''If we can provide the same degree of security through a better-built wall that has only, say, a 50-foot setback, then that's what we are going to do.''

Powell acknowledged that many embassies have not been outfitted with improvements recommended by a panel of investigators following an analysis of the two attacks in East Africa. For instance, the State Department has yet to anchor windows in its embassies into the infrastructure, still choosing to cover the windows with mylar -- a thick, durable plastic.

Most of the 12 Americans killed in the Kenya bombing were struck by shards of glass. The panel, headed by retired Adm. William Crowe, found that the windows had not been anchored into the building.

The State Department says it is continuing to respond to recommendations made by the Crowe panel.

''I think it's important to note that some of the findings were to occur over a 10-year period, so not all have occurred,'' said Charles Hunter, a spokesman for the agency.

For the budget year that begins Oct. 1, the agency has requested $1.3 billion for worldwide security. That's up from $1.07 million in the current budget year and $568 million for the year before. This money is spent on both operational and construction needs ranging from building new embassies to paying for security equipment.